Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: Arbuthnot Date: Feb 3, 2010 6:02am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: 24 bit question about a 24 carat show

it's a fantastic show and contains one of my all-time favorite musical sequences, and so, i'll probably download it, or more likely, just a portion of the 2nd set; whether there will be a noticeable difference in comparison to what i already have, hard to say; regarding your .mp3 question, no, there is no difference in an .mp3 sourced from a 16 bit or 24 bit, it's still .mp3 (at whatever rate it's compressed at)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Edsel Date: Feb 3, 2010 6:14am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: 24 bit question about a 24 carat show

The 24 bit source, when converted to MP3, may have more sizzle in the high end, and a bit more clairity overall. It will be noticable on a good stereo,(altho, why anyone plays MP3's on a good stereo is beyond me)not so much on your computer.
Source is everything when converting file types in the audio realm.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: elbow1126 Date: Feb 3, 2010 6:29am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: 24 bit question about a 24 carat show

I do play mp3s through the car stereo and my computer is hooked up to an okay speaker system at work and at home so I am not only listening through the computer speakers or earbuds.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Feb 3, 2010 9:55am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: 24 bit question about a 24 carat show

With really good shows (ie, excellent starting quality), I am one that finds little difference with whatever I play it on (admission: I do not have a system worth more than $500, but do have excellent headphones; I play my shows on ipods, various car players, various small boom box sorts, etc.).

I started out four yrs ago with NO MP3s around, matter of principle...now I really don't see (hear) much of a difference, though it pains me to admit it, and on smugness, I still prefer the lossless files...I know they are different, and accept some can tell, easily even, but in practice for me it's absolutely undectable (with my penchant for analysis of such debates, I was tested, blind, by my willing sons, and could NOT do better than 50/50...duh).

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: elbow1126 Date: Feb 3, 2010 10:40am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: 24 bit question about a 24 carat show

In general I agree, although i still think that sometimes lossless sounds fuller to me. When I make my own mp3 i use 256 kbps VBR but the other night i had the ipod running and noticed that i had both the .mp3 and lossless versions of the mosque show loaded and eventhough that is a great recording, i still felt there was a little difference. I picked the lossless version out after listening not before so I don't believe the study was biased. That said, i do find that I don't care that much and am perfectly content listening to the mp3s. I really asked the question because if the advantage of the 24 vs. 16 bit transfer is lost when you convert to mp3 than I wasn't going to bother downloading another version of a show for the sake of having the 24 bit.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Feb 3, 2010 11:42am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: 24 bit question about a 24 carat show

Yeah, I have only done it with a handful of really good, favorite shows for which I have 5 or so diff copies (like 12-29-68 & 9-19-70), and for these, it's probably that they just sound so good to begin with, 9-19 (or 10-12-68) especially, that it's hard to say one is better than the other, but I do agree with you that I might be able to say they are different, if that makes sense (for me I have thought that after I knew which was which). As yet another example, for these, a matrix (9-19) is in fact a MUCH bigger diff (again, "duh") and it could be easily separated from the others during our test...in the end "we" (they really have been forced to listen to this show a GREAT deal, elb!) decided the overall quality was largely equivalent even if we could tell they were different.

Hmmm--not sure I am getting anywhere here...Another reason I've rethunk the whole anti-MP3 angle is that the folks that are now sending me "CD gifts" (sending all those versions of 12-29 & 9-19 is paying off!!) invariably send me MP3 of their favs (caveat: they are generally studio materials...hmmm, whoops--scratch that; they are recordings of their own kids playing the Beatles, with permission).

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: SomeDarkHollow Date: Feb 3, 2010 10:06am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: 24 bit question about a 24 carat show

Agree whole heartedly. If it was 25 years ago and one less family ago, when the pusuit of auditory perfection was all encompassing, when dropping $800 (in 1984 dollars) on a set of Boston Acoustics seemed rational, when the mere thought of going with a UD-XL instead of an XLII would make my skin crawl, I suppose I would be able to tell the difference. Well, close to 45 years of rather substantially overdone sonic abuse has left my ears either less sensitive, or perhaps too tired to really bother trying, to really hear a difference. But if you have the HD space and the time, why the hell not?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: elbow1126 Date: Feb 3, 2010 6:32am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: 24 bit question about a 24 carat show

Thanks Arb, I hadn't thought about cherry-picking this source, which you can do from the archive.

So you really like that DS>SJ>US Blues segment? I guess it's okay.

I also love the second set intro jam>ship of fools and we can not forget the only GD Let It Rock. It is really a special show and whether I download it or not, at least I have an excuse to give it another listen.



This post was modified by elbow1126 on 2010-02-03 14:32:55